View report page

73
[1935
to be one, possibly, of food poisoning', investigation was made and it was found
that the patient had partaken of one of the same batch of veal and ham pies as
mentioned above, and that the person with the rash was not the only sufferer, as
two others in the house were recovering from the effects of the consumption of the
same pies. When the firm was criticised for not having given all the information,
as a complaint had been made to them regarding these other cases also, it was
alleged that the messenger had been instructed on delivering" the pie to intimate all
the cases, but he had only mentioned the one in respect of the particular portion of
pie he was delivering for examination. The cause of the poisoning in these three
Islington cases and the one outside the Borough is interesting. The firm were
satisfied that " the meat used in the preparation of the pies was fresh," and they
stated that in their opinion " the only possible source of contamination would be
that when these pies were prepared a supply of stock normally used for filling the
pies after baking was exhausted, and .a quantity of gelatine and water was prepared
and used. As this mixture was not sterilized by boiling before adding it to
the meat pies, it is possible that some source of infection may have had access in
this way."
It speaks well for the expert examination by the Bacteriologist that this very
suggestion was conveyed to the Medical Officer of Health by telephone when the
examination of the pie was made, long before the explanation by the firm was
forthcoming.
It is inexcusable to introduce unboiled gelatine solution, or even boiled if kept
overnight, as is sometimes done with such pies; the solution should be freshly
prepared and kept as clean as possible, since it makes a favourable medium for
bacterial growth. Such laxity by an employee may cause a firm very considerable
damage, not only in subsequent loss of trade, but the people who are taken ill have
in justice to be compensated.
PRESERVED FOOD AND ICE CREAM.
On page 67 of the Annual Report for 1932 the registration of premises in respect
of these articles was fully dealt with. In 1934 166 premises were on the register for
preserved food ; 3 were registered during the year 1935 and 2 were removed from
the register. The total on the register at the end of the year, therefore, was 167.
The number of ice cream premises in 1934 was 448. 2 cases were removed
from register in 1935 ; 34 additional were registered, so that the ice cream
premises on the register totalled 480 at the end of the year.
MILK AND DAIRIES ORDER, 1926.
Milk Purveyors and Dairies.—At the close of the year there were on the
register : 399 dairies. There were also in the borough 385 premises, from which milk
in sealed containers was being purveyed. The latter premises are not subject to the
provisions of the Milk & Dairies Order 1926, in view of the definition of the word
" dairy " in Art. 19 of the Milk & Dairies (Consolidation) Act, 1915. The person
occupying the premises is, however, registered as a purveyor of milk.
During the year, five premises were added to, and seven premises removed
from, the Register of dairies, while 30 purveyors' names were added to, and 5
removed from, the Register of the purveyors of milk. The occupiers of the dairies
are ipso facto registered purveyors of milk,